It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
There were terrible flaws in Bond films before, but I think this is absolutely the worst decision in the James Bond history. I really wish I wasn't feeling this way, but this is such a huge, huge disappointment for me. Bond's foster brother was jealous because his father loved James more than him, so he killed his father, created the worlds biggest crime syndicate, all the while trying to make Bond's life miserable. This sounds like a soap opera plot to me.
Apparently, I'm in the minority here as no one else sees this as utterly ridiculous. Unfortunately, this can't be undone, so unless they ditch this story altogether (which is highly unlikely), my anticipation of the next Bond movie is at it's lowest point. Which is a shame, really, because I like Daniel Craig, CR was a fantastic movie, SF was excellent, even QoS is a fine film. I'm not saying everything in SPECTRE was bad, there are things in it that I like, but this casts a shadow on the entire film.
Agreed. I respect @Birdleson's opinion because it's not just baseless platitudes, but someone who is a hardcore fan with a indepth knowledge and appreciation of the world of Bond.
Didn't realise I had to be a hardcore fan to have a valid opinion. I've watched Bond films loads of times so I feel I have enough knowledge. I say it how I see it.
This is what I've been saying and have been lambasted for it.
But I don't want to go back to the days of Matt Helm who, for some mysterious reason, kept dropping his anti-SF turds in literally every thread, even the ones not at all related to SF. His legendary rage turned irrational very quickly.
And I'd never, for a second, disrespect @Birdleson's opinion. A man who's so well-versed in matters of film, knows what he's talking about - period.
But Blofeld is not Bond's foster brother. Oberhauser was not even Bond's father. He had him temporarily and felt a certain kinship towards him, maybe something he didn't feel about his own son. If that is soap opera, so are the stories of Cain and Abel and Oedipus. What happened in the movie is that they placed these archetypes in a contemporary setting. And it is in perfect tune with the original character of Blofeld, who is pretty much the Satan of the literary Bondverse. Like Satan, he is jealous of man more than he is of God and considers himself of a exceptional nature. And like Satan, he changed form... And identities.
Ahh, Matt Helm, @DarthDimi. We could be discussing something as mundane as our favorite types of vegetables and somehow, anti-SF talk would appear instantly.
@Ludovico, I fully agree that they were wise not to make Blofeld a blood relative of Bond or even a foster brother. They knew each other and that's about where it ends.
Not saying Spectre is exactly like GoldenEye, but the similarities are striking in style, rhythm and in part some scenes are obvious homages.
Well that was off-topic, sorry.
Waltz is bloody awesome, he never overacts like Bardem did and there are this few short instances when you can feel his insanity creeping up and almost exploding, but he always can keep his countenance except for one moment
We're thinking alike on this. SP effectively combines the ridiculous with the serious like other Bond film has since GE.
Nowhere in that comment did I say certain opinions weren't valid. I just said I respect @Birdleson's opinion because, well, it comes from the right place.
When I saw "Tangier" appear on the screen, I almost screamed out "Koskov!"….but then no one in the theatre would have understood.
The whole plane chase is practically a re-enactment of the tank chase, even some camera angles are exactly the same and the situation in general.
Foster brother, childhood acquaintance, all the same.
I'm sorry, but I see things differently. I think this is the worst thing they could do. I don't like Bond films to go this deep into Bond's personal backstory. Major mistake, IMO.
I respect the fact that you and others feel differently.
In fact I liked that very much.
Of course, him being Blofeld was unnecessary it would have worked without that minor detail in the movie as well.
Minor because, except for Oberhauser telling Bond that he has now a new name, him being Blofeld is totally irrelevant for the movie or its plot.
It's almost like someone of the script writers came up with that addition later on and build it in the dialogue.
You could even say, Oberhauser being Blofeld is only an homage to the Connery movies.
Actually, no, it is not all the same. They have known each other for two years or so. Granted, it is far fetched, but such is the thing with fiction. Bond bumping into Goldfinger in the novel is also far fetched, or meeting Tracy who happens to be the daughter of a business rival of the man he is pursuing. The only difference here is that they placed Blofeld into Bond's backstory. But not that deep in it: he is not blood relative, he is not a foster brother, he is not even a childhood friend.
You are missing the point. It's not important to me if they are brothers, foster brothers, friends or acquaintances. I don't like the fact that Bond and Blofeld know each other from the past, and everything that comes as a result of that. I don't like Blofeld (or any other villain) as the guy who haunts Bond all his life. I simply don't find it interesting. I think it's soap-operish.
There's nothing more I could add. I don't like it, you and others do, and that's it. I'm not going to change my opinion. :)
Christoph Waltz plays Franz Oberhauser, he is not the Blofeld we know from past Bond movies. He just happens to take his name. That's a huge difference.
I think this was just one more homage to the Bond movies of the past.
I understand but that they know each other from the past does not make all his life centered around Blofeld and his antagonism with him. In fact, it is all Blofeld's assumption: he has this megalomaniacal vision of himself as the source of all evil and the Bondmaker so to speak. It is true he hurt Bond by killing Hans Oberhauser... however he did not commit parricide to spite Bond, but because Blofeld felt slighted. Id his later actions were instrumental in Vesper's betrayal and subsequent suicide and M's death, he still played a very peripheral role in them. Which he bolsters because he has this vision of himself. His true antagonism with Bond might have had roots in the past, but it truly starts with SP.
And let's face it, Blofeld is Bond's nemesis. Just like Moriarty is Holmes' or Rastapopoulos is Tintin's. For such characters, they are bond to meet. And clash.
Good point. If I look at it this way, then it makes more sense.